It is well settled that where two non jurisdictional High Court’s decisions are opposed to each other, the one in favor of the assessee is required to be followed by the Tribunal.
Merely on the reasoning that liability in respect of some of the sundry creditors have remained outstanding for about three years the assessing officer has concluded that they have to be treated as income of the assessee in the impugned assessment year as they have ceased to exist as per section 41(1) of the Act.
Taxability of income earned by an assessee during the period when the project was not complete and business had not commenced has remained a debatable point in many cases.
Where show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) did not specify charge against assessee as to whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, levy of penalty could no be sustained.
Many clubs allow membership to companies or other business entities. The membership is given in name of company or other concern. It is very well known that the clubs are a platform to meet people.
License fee, Connectivity charges and co-ordination charges paid to a US based company GE Capital Corporation for use of ‘Vision Plus’ software held to be revenue in nature and allowable under section 37
Non compete fee is not an eligible intangible asset as the words similar business or commercial rights have to necessary result in an intangible asset against the entire word which can be asserted as such to qualify for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act which non compete fees lacks
Share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee or ask for the production of the investors for examination u/s 131 or if adverse material is found during search to prove that share application money is bogus or an arranged affair of the assessee
Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has taken premise on rent for which he has given interest-free refundable security deposit of Rs. 11,70,000 to the landlord. When the assessee could not continue with the possession, he claimed the entire amount back which was not given by the landlord, therefore he […]
The exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions of Section 263 has been a matter of controversy. Especially when it comes to denying the deduction which has been allowed by the Assessing Officer during the course of regular assessment
